I agree this type of conduct is bad for the soul. The falseness and negativity from this kind of behavior is in the the world whether we pay attention to it or not. It helps to see it as the degeneration we must face as a test for our own development, to gain strength and compassion.
What has this controversy wrought? Attention has been brought to the immigration crisis. Specifically with regards to Springfield its coming out that there's a human trafficking ring being perpetrated by a couple of companies for the cheap labor. And people have been evicted from their homes in order to house Haitians in deplorable conditions as they pack many into a single house. And the mayor is being implicated for profiting off of this. All of this is a small part of what is going on with the illegal immigration which includes a mass influx of fentanyl to Venezuelan gangs taking over apartment complexes in Aurora, Colorado and in Chicago and New York. The illegal immigration is having a profoundly destabilizing effect on the US, as it is in Europe.
Looking to the mainstream media for information is to a very large extent a non-starter. For a history of the media in this country one must go back to the 1950s and the CIA's Operation Mockingbird when the CIA recruited 400 journalists from newspapers and television to tow the CIA line. Some did it out of a sense of patriotism, others did it for money. But that was the beginning of this undermining of the news in the US. And then in the 1990s Bill Clinton signed the Communications Act which allowed corporations to assimilate independent news sources all over the country. All of the news sources - television, newspapers, radio - are now controlled by five or six big corporations. This is why all we get in the media is propaganda 100% of the time. And alternate media like Google, Facebook, and YouTube gets manipulated and censored all the time as has come out in Congressional hearings. Finding out the truth is very difficult. But absolutely nothing in the mainstream media is at all reliable.
In this context it is reasonable to suspect that J D Vance has been misquoted, taken out of context, and otherwise smeared. And testimonials by Springfield citizens are being ignored or discounted. I suggest that one thing people can do at this juncture is take a look at Tucker Carlson's recent interview with J D Vance. Carlson is sympathetic with Vance, and to me this is a good thing. This is the only way to find out what his perspective really is. I'd hate to think what would happen if Rudolf Steiner were interviewed by CNN or NPR.
Hey John - thanks for writing. I'm not sure about any of the claims you make in the first paragraph. I would need to read some articles on those topics, and they would need to point to their own sources so I could follow up such claims for myself. If you think any of those topics are especially important, and know of any articles on them that you think are especially reliable, feel free to share them.
I'm not sure what to make of your claims that "all we get in the media is propaganda 100% of the time" and "absolutely nothing in the mainstream media is at all reliable." I have to assume this is just hyperbole because you start out the paragraph with a slightly more measured tone, "Looking to the mainstream media for information is to a very large extent a non-starter."
Also, the evidence of censorship that is coming out in congressional hearings is largely censorship by the government. But then, it's the government that is revealing it. That's strange. Is the government ever believable or is it always lying and cheating the American people? And many of the reporters who are speaking in those hearings once worked for the mainstream media. For instance, Matt Taibbi: was he a pure propagandist when he worked for Rolling Stone, and now he has become a pure fighter for the truth? Or you mentioned Tucker Carlson. Do you think he was a pure propagandist when he worked for Fox News, and now he has become a pure fighter for the truth? Or is it something more nuanced than that either/or?
I clearly was horrified by the Guardian article that I quoted in my article, but then I saw an email from a friend where they just wrote an article for the Guardian, and I'm sure that article will be interesting. Definitely, definitely not pure propaganda. I think the Guardian does a great job some of the time, and fails miserably at other times. Which is also how I feel about most other newspapers, even with their consolidated corporate ownership structures (which I agree is a significant source of corruption. I just think it's more of a subtle, steady corrosive effect, and not that all those journalists immediately swapped teams and joined the Dark Side).
I assume that you also think it's more nuanced than you're describing it, and that you're just getting caught up in hyperbole, which I know is a strong temptation for everyone (including myself :). Just thought I'd mention it though, because I find it hard to respond to. A part of me wants to immediately dismiss it as extremist and just ignore your comment altogether. That said, I appreciate your passion at desire to get to the truth. All the best - Seth
I'll give you an example of propaganda in the American media. And it's the same in the EU as well, with some exceptions. The war in Ukraine. If you watch the MSM then you will have gotten the idea that Ukraine was winning the war, that Russia is the aggressor, and so forth. Contrast the perspective you get from alternative media with the likes of Judge Napolitano (who is not free to report the way he wants to now that he's free from the shackles placed on him by Fox), Douglas McGregor, Larry Johnson, Ray McGovern, Scott Ritter, Garland Nixon, Alex Mercouris, Alex Christoforou, Jeffrey Sachs, and quite a number of others. Some of these I've been following for years. If you want sources that will tell you the truth about these and other aspects of international relations you can't go wrong.
As for Rolling Stone, it used to be a good publication once upon a time. As far as politically charged articles it may be they flew under the radar for having been a music magazine. I remember when it was the one thing at the grocery checkout that would have something of substance to it, but no more. It's been captured.
If you spend a good amount of time with these sources I'm guessing you might rethink using the term hyperbole in this context.
Maybe there is an immigration "crisis" in the US (for sure boundaries of all kinds have good reasons), and maybe there is also a conservative reflex against immigrants which is being exploited by Trump and co. Phenotypic Conservatives (as opposed to merely political) are a lot more into boundaries and keeping categories separate, not mixing than phenotypic liberals, whether it's during pandemics like the black plague, or keeping sexuality as a concept clear and simple, or keeping out "impurities" of all kinds, including sexual and ideological. The covid thing seems to go against this (experimentally validated) theory until we realize that there is also the whole conservative distrust for large institutions and love of individual freedom. So truth doesn't matter much (for either libs or cons) in trying to win over most people, group identity and other simian instincts matter much more. Vilifying the other is something both libs and cons do equally, it seems.
Seth, I think this as a contest to win an election, not about truth at all. Bringing up immigration is a brilliant strategic move from that perspective, winning over phenotypic conservatives who are still undecided.
Yeah, it's a circus. I find it interesting that americans are so much into their pets in the first place, more than they are into their neighbors, especially if the neighbors are from a different culture. Pets can be dominated and pets can express the wild part that their owners have repressed in themselves. But a culture based mostly on pets and children is doomed. We should have a culture to inspire children, not base our culture on them. We should commune more with neighbors and family members than with pets.
Hey Luval - it's a really interesting observation. I think it's true that Americans tend to be far more connected to their animals than to their neighbors. That seems like it could be connected to our antisocial nature - it's so hard to get to know other people, to even want to get to know them, and it's so hard to stand them once you do know them. There's a quote by the novelist Ursula K. Le Guin that I love:
"It is hard to meet a stranger. Even the greatest extrovert meeting even the meekest stranger knows a certain dread, though he may not know he knows it. Will he make a fool of me wreck my image of myself invade me destroy me change me? Will he be different from me? Yes, that he will. There’s the terrible thing: the strangeness of the stranger."
In this respect I think our love of pets and children is also connected to the fact that these things can still draw us out of ourselves, and help us overcome our antisocial nature. Because they need us, so we have to. Or they love us unconditionally, so we don't have to be afraid of rejection. Whereas our neighbors are strange, scary beings.
And I totally agree that "We should have a culture to inspire children, not base our culture on them," though of course that changes when children become young adults who can really bring a breath of fresh air into the cultural life (and that's not to belittle the amazing gifts that children bring, it's just different).
I do wonder, based on your description of Americans, if you're from somewhere outside the US and if the owner-pet relationship is different there?
Thanks for the LeGuin quote. I love her wisdom and understanding of human natures.
Your comment about children and pets drawing us out of ourselves is almost spot on. I say "almost" because while children and pets can bring us out of ourselves, they don't help us improve that much as human beings, they don't challenge us as much as adults can. Children can be difficult and challenging, but not in ways that we have to change much. Perhaps they can make us a bit less selfish, but ultimately, they have to do what we tell them, there is no need to reflect much on our motives or change our ideas. And pets will just do whatever we tell them and forgive everything.
I was born in another country and was exposed to two other cultures besides that one, in addition to the American one. Perhaps that helps me see things from another perspective. I've also known people who eat cats out of necessity (not their pets though, fine people)...
Seth - can you identify anything on any media at this time of year that isn't pure theater? I'm NOT saying it deserves applause, as GOOD theater might, but to get consumed in one side or the other says there is some actual legitimacy to the exercise.
Does any of this feel like By the People, Of the People and For the People. This nation was birthed as a Republic. That lasted into the civil times. In 1871 it was demanded, by the French who had loaned us money to fight the Civil War. As pat of that contract, they demanded a central bank (now the privately owned Federal Reserve) and that the government become a corporation - which it did. Check the real true histoy of our country. THAT's what we're living with now.
Saw a T shirt recently saying "The government we have now is what the founding father warned us about". So very true!!
Hey King - thanks so much for writing. Your comment is one of a string of comments on here that focus on the larger failures with the US government (see John Mugge's and Carol Lewis' comments). While this is certainly an important topic, and well-deserving of it's own article, it's interesting to me that it's led to such a feeling of "nothing's possible, it's all lost, don't bother paying attention to the circus at all."
Is it all lost? I don't think so. The point of this publication is to point out some of the ways we can reverse the toxic trends in our social development.
But why do I bother pointing out the lies of the NYT and Guardian? It's not because they're two of the most esteemed media publications in the western world, though of course that's significant. But it's simply their boldness that I find incredible. The fact that they're so unabashed about it. They're saying red is green, and we're all nodding along. And they could be anyone - they could be friends of mine, or people I know from work - and of course I would still be horrified. Why? Because I know these gradations of lying in myself.
I know what it is to want things to go a certain way, to have an agenda, and so to describe a situation with a certain color to it. I probably do this often (I only catch myself occasionally, so I can assume it's a lot more often), and so I know what this lack of integrity means. It's a subtle lie, a subtle self-deception, what William Stafford called "the shrug that let's the fragile sequence break" - a kind of mental shrug. But while such small self-deceptions are relatively common and understandable (we're only so self-aware, so we can get by with deceiving ourselves and others in this way), blatant lies are a whole other thing. It's HARD to lie to someone's face, to say "No, you said this" when really I know full well that they didn't. But to do that in a piece of writing, in black and white, would be harder still. And to do it as a piece of writing in front of the whole world, and have a team of editors sign off on it, is pretty mind-boggling to me.
Personally, I find that most journalism only falls into the category of the mental shrug. It's full of little lies and twists and misdirections. It all has a certain color. And some of it, of course, is worse then that. It's more obviously a lie, but they're still doing a good job of covering their tracks and they've got a good alibi.
But I don't know what the alibi could be for the pieces that I write about in this article. I don't know how the authors could claim it was an "honest mistake." And everybody - at least everybody I know - wants to be able to justify their lies. It helps us sleep at night. It soothes our conscience. I would imagine such blatant lies in front of the whole world would lead to many a sleepless night...
And then there's just the whole spiritual reality of the Word. It has it's own power and integrity, and we can become sensitive when we, or others, do it violence. It doesn't matter if that's in our everyday lives or on the stage of world events. The violence is real, the spiritual corruption is real, and I think we should discuss it so that we can put an end to it, at least in ourselves.
Does that help explain why I find this story newsworthy?
Hope all's well. And thanks again for your comment.
I do not think the thrust of all these statements should go unchallenged, at a time when so much is at stake. No matter what mistakes "the left" makes, Trump is a clear and present danger, full stop. The U.S. is hardly a democracy in any case--with the Electoral College and aggressive gerrymandering, it is a republic skewed by corruption. Trump at the helm again, with the Republican machine behind him, would mean everything Project 2025 threatens, without the guard rails of his last term. It absolutely does not matter how imperfect you find the Democrats, the Left, the media. Anyone who does not realize that not voting for Harris is a vote for Trump has not been paying attention.
Hey Carol - I agree that "the thrust of all these statements should (not) go unchallenged," which is what I do in the article. But I wonder if you think it's worth challenging the NYT and Guardian's statements as well?
What I said was that I did not think the thrust of your statements should go unchallenged. While there may be some good in J.D. Vance, I think what he's doing currently is deeply destructive. My understanding is that the mayor of Springfield does not support him, and the original comments from the person who thought her pet had been eaten have been retracted. Never mind the bomb threats on schools. Any apparent spin in the NYT and Guardian pales beside the dangerous demagoguery from Vance, Trump et al. What I am resisting is the false equivalency and "sane-washing" that I fear can cost decency the election.
Got it. Thanks for clarifying. I understand your concern that putting the two side by side is making them equal, but that wasn't my intention. The focus of the article was really on the NYT and the Guardian. That was my real lament. I mentioned Trump and Vance because they're central to the story, but they weren't the point of the article. So I wasn't trying to equate the two; they were just two parts of a story.
But why am I writing an article that's concerned about the press lying? Two reasons. First, I expect more from the press when it comes to truth-telling. I don't expect much, if anything from politicians. In fact, I expect them to lie and I pray that the press will call them on it, will do something about it, will be a check on their corruption. Also, as a writer, I identify much, much more with the press. When they tell lies it breaks my heart.
Second, their lies are in black and white. They can't say they misspoke (which is what Vance did). Their lies have been carefully written down and then pored over by a team of editors. Also, the lies in this specific case are so egregious. They're so, so obvious. They're so blatant that it becomes ridiculous.
Can anyone argue that they're not lies, that they actually got the story right? Or even that they just made some honest mistakes? Is it possible? This is my question for you, Carol. You call them "apparant spin" in your comment. Does that mean that they might appear that way, but it's not clear if they are actually spin? If so, can you understand them any other way and can you help me see them differently? I can't imagine how someone could defend them, so I would b incredibly grateful if you would. I don't mean to put you on the spot, but I'm just really boggled by these articles. Thanks. All the best - Seth
Here is what you have written: "And so it would seem that the Guardian reporters watched that CNN interview and understood Vance to be making a “stunning admission.” They saw the host of the show, Dana Bash, repeat his own words back to him — “You just said that this is a story that you created” — and they saw him say “Yes!” And, BOOM! There you have it. He admitted the whole thing, clear as day.
But then, they also saw the immediate follow-up where Dana says, “so the eating dogs and cats thing is not accurate.” And they saw Vance give an exasperated, painful eye-roll at her obvious misdirection. And they heard his clear annoyance while correcting her: “Daaana, it comes from first-hand accounts from my constituents.” And we know that the Guardian reporters heard those things because they also include those words in the article. But still, somehow they understood it all to be an admission. (And to add reinforcement, they quote Pete Buttigieg who also understood Vance to be making a “remarkable confession.”)
But really, the Guardian didn’t actually understand it that way at all. How could they? They’re obviously just playing politics. Really, they’re just lying about what Vance said. He obviously didn’t admit or confess anything. What happened was, he made a dumb word-choice, and then the other side lost their minds."
I heard the exchange differently. Having understood (rightly or wrongly) in the interim that there was no basis in fact for the cats and dogs story, I took Vance to say that he was repeating something he had heard to draw people's attention to his take on the Haitian immigration scenario in Springfield, which has also been called questionable. I did not find the Guardian account "egregious" at all, as I believe it was written in the aftermath of the damage done by Vance's "poor choice of words," for which, because of his stance on immigration, he is unrepentant. Vance did not fact-check before his statements, and even the Republican governor of Ohio did not support him. It was not just a poor choice of words; he's hell-bent to prove something, so he takes the flimsiest evidence he has, and in the process, those Haitians are being maligned and hurt. That is the real story, and you are holding the media to a higher standard of truth-telling than J.D. Vance. You defend this point of view, but I think that in these perilous times, it does not serve us to shoot the messenger.
Hi Carol - sorry, but I still don't understand what you're saying. It seems like you're saying you "heard the exchange differently" then I did, but we both agree that Vance was "repeating something he had heard to draw people's attention" to the situation. And we both think there was the "flimsiest evidence" for it (at least that he shared in his post on X). I say all of that in the article.
That said, it seems that you don't find the Guardian piece egregious because of how much damage you believe Vance has done and how he's still unrepentant. But that's not a standard for truth. When it comes to truth, it doesn't matter how bad the person is, it doesn't matter if they're Mother Teresa or Mussolini. If the media says they said something, and they didn't, then it's a lie. Do you agree with that? And if you do, do you think that the Guardian and NYT lied because they reported that he "admitted" and "confessed" to fabricating stories when he never actually did? Sorry, to press you on this. I won't ask again. I'm just trying to get clear. Thanks!
I understand your point of view, and I agree that twisting the truth is a problem in the mainstream media, and that is what you are trying to say. I am simply concerned that this is the wrong thing to highlight at such a time. The race is extremely close, and we need to put all our energy into making sure that Trump does not win it. Any focus on mistakes the left or the media have made just gives people an excuse to stay home from voting or even vote for Trump--a kind of "what about" ism. And I think this is very dangerous.
I agree this type of conduct is bad for the soul. The falseness and negativity from this kind of behavior is in the the world whether we pay attention to it or not. It helps to see it as the degeneration we must face as a test for our own development, to gain strength and compassion.
Well said. These things are here "for our own development, to gain strength and compassion."
What has this controversy wrought? Attention has been brought to the immigration crisis. Specifically with regards to Springfield its coming out that there's a human trafficking ring being perpetrated by a couple of companies for the cheap labor. And people have been evicted from their homes in order to house Haitians in deplorable conditions as they pack many into a single house. And the mayor is being implicated for profiting off of this. All of this is a small part of what is going on with the illegal immigration which includes a mass influx of fentanyl to Venezuelan gangs taking over apartment complexes in Aurora, Colorado and in Chicago and New York. The illegal immigration is having a profoundly destabilizing effect on the US, as it is in Europe.
Looking to the mainstream media for information is to a very large extent a non-starter. For a history of the media in this country one must go back to the 1950s and the CIA's Operation Mockingbird when the CIA recruited 400 journalists from newspapers and television to tow the CIA line. Some did it out of a sense of patriotism, others did it for money. But that was the beginning of this undermining of the news in the US. And then in the 1990s Bill Clinton signed the Communications Act which allowed corporations to assimilate independent news sources all over the country. All of the news sources - television, newspapers, radio - are now controlled by five or six big corporations. This is why all we get in the media is propaganda 100% of the time. And alternate media like Google, Facebook, and YouTube gets manipulated and censored all the time as has come out in Congressional hearings. Finding out the truth is very difficult. But absolutely nothing in the mainstream media is at all reliable.
In this context it is reasonable to suspect that J D Vance has been misquoted, taken out of context, and otherwise smeared. And testimonials by Springfield citizens are being ignored or discounted. I suggest that one thing people can do at this juncture is take a look at Tucker Carlson's recent interview with J D Vance. Carlson is sympathetic with Vance, and to me this is a good thing. This is the only way to find out what his perspective really is. I'd hate to think what would happen if Rudolf Steiner were interviewed by CNN or NPR.
Hey John - thanks for writing. I'm not sure about any of the claims you make in the first paragraph. I would need to read some articles on those topics, and they would need to point to their own sources so I could follow up such claims for myself. If you think any of those topics are especially important, and know of any articles on them that you think are especially reliable, feel free to share them.
I'm not sure what to make of your claims that "all we get in the media is propaganda 100% of the time" and "absolutely nothing in the mainstream media is at all reliable." I have to assume this is just hyperbole because you start out the paragraph with a slightly more measured tone, "Looking to the mainstream media for information is to a very large extent a non-starter."
Also, the evidence of censorship that is coming out in congressional hearings is largely censorship by the government. But then, it's the government that is revealing it. That's strange. Is the government ever believable or is it always lying and cheating the American people? And many of the reporters who are speaking in those hearings once worked for the mainstream media. For instance, Matt Taibbi: was he a pure propagandist when he worked for Rolling Stone, and now he has become a pure fighter for the truth? Or you mentioned Tucker Carlson. Do you think he was a pure propagandist when he worked for Fox News, and now he has become a pure fighter for the truth? Or is it something more nuanced than that either/or?
I clearly was horrified by the Guardian article that I quoted in my article, but then I saw an email from a friend where they just wrote an article for the Guardian, and I'm sure that article will be interesting. Definitely, definitely not pure propaganda. I think the Guardian does a great job some of the time, and fails miserably at other times. Which is also how I feel about most other newspapers, even with their consolidated corporate ownership structures (which I agree is a significant source of corruption. I just think it's more of a subtle, steady corrosive effect, and not that all those journalists immediately swapped teams and joined the Dark Side).
I assume that you also think it's more nuanced than you're describing it, and that you're just getting caught up in hyperbole, which I know is a strong temptation for everyone (including myself :). Just thought I'd mention it though, because I find it hard to respond to. A part of me wants to immediately dismiss it as extremist and just ignore your comment altogether. That said, I appreciate your passion at desire to get to the truth. All the best - Seth
I'll give you an example of propaganda in the American media. And it's the same in the EU as well, with some exceptions. The war in Ukraine. If you watch the MSM then you will have gotten the idea that Ukraine was winning the war, that Russia is the aggressor, and so forth. Contrast the perspective you get from alternative media with the likes of Judge Napolitano (who is not free to report the way he wants to now that he's free from the shackles placed on him by Fox), Douglas McGregor, Larry Johnson, Ray McGovern, Scott Ritter, Garland Nixon, Alex Mercouris, Alex Christoforou, Jeffrey Sachs, and quite a number of others. Some of these I've been following for years. If you want sources that will tell you the truth about these and other aspects of international relations you can't go wrong.
As for Rolling Stone, it used to be a good publication once upon a time. As far as politically charged articles it may be they flew under the radar for having been a music magazine. I remember when it was the one thing at the grocery checkout that would have something of substance to it, but no more. It's been captured.
If you spend a good amount of time with these sources I'm guessing you might rethink using the term hyperbole in this context.
Maybe there is an immigration "crisis" in the US (for sure boundaries of all kinds have good reasons), and maybe there is also a conservative reflex against immigrants which is being exploited by Trump and co. Phenotypic Conservatives (as opposed to merely political) are a lot more into boundaries and keeping categories separate, not mixing than phenotypic liberals, whether it's during pandemics like the black plague, or keeping sexuality as a concept clear and simple, or keeping out "impurities" of all kinds, including sexual and ideological. The covid thing seems to go against this (experimentally validated) theory until we realize that there is also the whole conservative distrust for large institutions and love of individual freedom. So truth doesn't matter much (for either libs or cons) in trying to win over most people, group identity and other simian instincts matter much more. Vilifying the other is something both libs and cons do equally, it seems.
Seth, I think this as a contest to win an election, not about truth at all. Bringing up immigration is a brilliant strategic move from that perspective, winning over phenotypic conservatives who are still undecided.
So good to have your voice back, Seth!!
Thanks, Patrick. It's great to be writing a longer article again. Little rusty :)
Yeah, it's a circus. I find it interesting that americans are so much into their pets in the first place, more than they are into their neighbors, especially if the neighbors are from a different culture. Pets can be dominated and pets can express the wild part that their owners have repressed in themselves. But a culture based mostly on pets and children is doomed. We should have a culture to inspire children, not base our culture on them. We should commune more with neighbors and family members than with pets.
Hey Luval - it's a really interesting observation. I think it's true that Americans tend to be far more connected to their animals than to their neighbors. That seems like it could be connected to our antisocial nature - it's so hard to get to know other people, to even want to get to know them, and it's so hard to stand them once you do know them. There's a quote by the novelist Ursula K. Le Guin that I love:
"It is hard to meet a stranger. Even the greatest extrovert meeting even the meekest stranger knows a certain dread, though he may not know he knows it. Will he make a fool of me wreck my image of myself invade me destroy me change me? Will he be different from me? Yes, that he will. There’s the terrible thing: the strangeness of the stranger."
In this respect I think our love of pets and children is also connected to the fact that these things can still draw us out of ourselves, and help us overcome our antisocial nature. Because they need us, so we have to. Or they love us unconditionally, so we don't have to be afraid of rejection. Whereas our neighbors are strange, scary beings.
And I totally agree that "We should have a culture to inspire children, not base our culture on them," though of course that changes when children become young adults who can really bring a breath of fresh air into the cultural life (and that's not to belittle the amazing gifts that children bring, it's just different).
I do wonder, based on your description of Americans, if you're from somewhere outside the US and if the owner-pet relationship is different there?
Thanks for the LeGuin quote. I love her wisdom and understanding of human natures.
Your comment about children and pets drawing us out of ourselves is almost spot on. I say "almost" because while children and pets can bring us out of ourselves, they don't help us improve that much as human beings, they don't challenge us as much as adults can. Children can be difficult and challenging, but not in ways that we have to change much. Perhaps they can make us a bit less selfish, but ultimately, they have to do what we tell them, there is no need to reflect much on our motives or change our ideas. And pets will just do whatever we tell them and forgive everything.
I was born in another country and was exposed to two other cultures besides that one, in addition to the American one. Perhaps that helps me see things from another perspective. I've also known people who eat cats out of necessity (not their pets though, fine people)...
Seth - can you identify anything on any media at this time of year that isn't pure theater? I'm NOT saying it deserves applause, as GOOD theater might, but to get consumed in one side or the other says there is some actual legitimacy to the exercise.
Does any of this feel like By the People, Of the People and For the People. This nation was birthed as a Republic. That lasted into the civil times. In 1871 it was demanded, by the French who had loaned us money to fight the Civil War. As pat of that contract, they demanded a central bank (now the privately owned Federal Reserve) and that the government become a corporation - which it did. Check the real true histoy of our country. THAT's what we're living with now.
Saw a T shirt recently saying "The government we have now is what the founding father warned us about". So very true!!
Hey King - thanks so much for writing. Your comment is one of a string of comments on here that focus on the larger failures with the US government (see John Mugge's and Carol Lewis' comments). While this is certainly an important topic, and well-deserving of it's own article, it's interesting to me that it's led to such a feeling of "nothing's possible, it's all lost, don't bother paying attention to the circus at all."
Is it all lost? I don't think so. The point of this publication is to point out some of the ways we can reverse the toxic trends in our social development.
But why do I bother pointing out the lies of the NYT and Guardian? It's not because they're two of the most esteemed media publications in the western world, though of course that's significant. But it's simply their boldness that I find incredible. The fact that they're so unabashed about it. They're saying red is green, and we're all nodding along. And they could be anyone - they could be friends of mine, or people I know from work - and of course I would still be horrified. Why? Because I know these gradations of lying in myself.
I know what it is to want things to go a certain way, to have an agenda, and so to describe a situation with a certain color to it. I probably do this often (I only catch myself occasionally, so I can assume it's a lot more often), and so I know what this lack of integrity means. It's a subtle lie, a subtle self-deception, what William Stafford called "the shrug that let's the fragile sequence break" - a kind of mental shrug. But while such small self-deceptions are relatively common and understandable (we're only so self-aware, so we can get by with deceiving ourselves and others in this way), blatant lies are a whole other thing. It's HARD to lie to someone's face, to say "No, you said this" when really I know full well that they didn't. But to do that in a piece of writing, in black and white, would be harder still. And to do it as a piece of writing in front of the whole world, and have a team of editors sign off on it, is pretty mind-boggling to me.
Personally, I find that most journalism only falls into the category of the mental shrug. It's full of little lies and twists and misdirections. It all has a certain color. And some of it, of course, is worse then that. It's more obviously a lie, but they're still doing a good job of covering their tracks and they've got a good alibi.
But I don't know what the alibi could be for the pieces that I write about in this article. I don't know how the authors could claim it was an "honest mistake." And everybody - at least everybody I know - wants to be able to justify their lies. It helps us sleep at night. It soothes our conscience. I would imagine such blatant lies in front of the whole world would lead to many a sleepless night...
And then there's just the whole spiritual reality of the Word. It has it's own power and integrity, and we can become sensitive when we, or others, do it violence. It doesn't matter if that's in our everyday lives or on the stage of world events. The violence is real, the spiritual corruption is real, and I think we should discuss it so that we can put an end to it, at least in ourselves.
Does that help explain why I find this story newsworthy?
Hope all's well. And thanks again for your comment.
I do not think the thrust of all these statements should go unchallenged, at a time when so much is at stake. No matter what mistakes "the left" makes, Trump is a clear and present danger, full stop. The U.S. is hardly a democracy in any case--with the Electoral College and aggressive gerrymandering, it is a republic skewed by corruption. Trump at the helm again, with the Republican machine behind him, would mean everything Project 2025 threatens, without the guard rails of his last term. It absolutely does not matter how imperfect you find the Democrats, the Left, the media. Anyone who does not realize that not voting for Harris is a vote for Trump has not been paying attention.
Hey Carol - I agree that "the thrust of all these statements should (not) go unchallenged," which is what I do in the article. But I wonder if you think it's worth challenging the NYT and Guardian's statements as well?
What I said was that I did not think the thrust of your statements should go unchallenged. While there may be some good in J.D. Vance, I think what he's doing currently is deeply destructive. My understanding is that the mayor of Springfield does not support him, and the original comments from the person who thought her pet had been eaten have been retracted. Never mind the bomb threats on schools. Any apparent spin in the NYT and Guardian pales beside the dangerous demagoguery from Vance, Trump et al. What I am resisting is the false equivalency and "sane-washing" that I fear can cost decency the election.
Got it. Thanks for clarifying. I understand your concern that putting the two side by side is making them equal, but that wasn't my intention. The focus of the article was really on the NYT and the Guardian. That was my real lament. I mentioned Trump and Vance because they're central to the story, but they weren't the point of the article. So I wasn't trying to equate the two; they were just two parts of a story.
But why am I writing an article that's concerned about the press lying? Two reasons. First, I expect more from the press when it comes to truth-telling. I don't expect much, if anything from politicians. In fact, I expect them to lie and I pray that the press will call them on it, will do something about it, will be a check on their corruption. Also, as a writer, I identify much, much more with the press. When they tell lies it breaks my heart.
Second, their lies are in black and white. They can't say they misspoke (which is what Vance did). Their lies have been carefully written down and then pored over by a team of editors. Also, the lies in this specific case are so egregious. They're so, so obvious. They're so blatant that it becomes ridiculous.
Can anyone argue that they're not lies, that they actually got the story right? Or even that they just made some honest mistakes? Is it possible? This is my question for you, Carol. You call them "apparant spin" in your comment. Does that mean that they might appear that way, but it's not clear if they are actually spin? If so, can you understand them any other way and can you help me see them differently? I can't imagine how someone could defend them, so I would b incredibly grateful if you would. I don't mean to put you on the spot, but I'm just really boggled by these articles. Thanks. All the best - Seth
Here is what you have written: "And so it would seem that the Guardian reporters watched that CNN interview and understood Vance to be making a “stunning admission.” They saw the host of the show, Dana Bash, repeat his own words back to him — “You just said that this is a story that you created” — and they saw him say “Yes!” And, BOOM! There you have it. He admitted the whole thing, clear as day.
But then, they also saw the immediate follow-up where Dana says, “so the eating dogs and cats thing is not accurate.” And they saw Vance give an exasperated, painful eye-roll at her obvious misdirection. And they heard his clear annoyance while correcting her: “Daaana, it comes from first-hand accounts from my constituents.” And we know that the Guardian reporters heard those things because they also include those words in the article. But still, somehow they understood it all to be an admission. (And to add reinforcement, they quote Pete Buttigieg who also understood Vance to be making a “remarkable confession.”)
But really, the Guardian didn’t actually understand it that way at all. How could they? They’re obviously just playing politics. Really, they’re just lying about what Vance said. He obviously didn’t admit or confess anything. What happened was, he made a dumb word-choice, and then the other side lost their minds."
I heard the exchange differently. Having understood (rightly or wrongly) in the interim that there was no basis in fact for the cats and dogs story, I took Vance to say that he was repeating something he had heard to draw people's attention to his take on the Haitian immigration scenario in Springfield, which has also been called questionable. I did not find the Guardian account "egregious" at all, as I believe it was written in the aftermath of the damage done by Vance's "poor choice of words," for which, because of his stance on immigration, he is unrepentant. Vance did not fact-check before his statements, and even the Republican governor of Ohio did not support him. It was not just a poor choice of words; he's hell-bent to prove something, so he takes the flimsiest evidence he has, and in the process, those Haitians are being maligned and hurt. That is the real story, and you are holding the media to a higher standard of truth-telling than J.D. Vance. You defend this point of view, but I think that in these perilous times, it does not serve us to shoot the messenger.
Hi Carol - sorry, but I still don't understand what you're saying. It seems like you're saying you "heard the exchange differently" then I did, but we both agree that Vance was "repeating something he had heard to draw people's attention" to the situation. And we both think there was the "flimsiest evidence" for it (at least that he shared in his post on X). I say all of that in the article.
That said, it seems that you don't find the Guardian piece egregious because of how much damage you believe Vance has done and how he's still unrepentant. But that's not a standard for truth. When it comes to truth, it doesn't matter how bad the person is, it doesn't matter if they're Mother Teresa or Mussolini. If the media says they said something, and they didn't, then it's a lie. Do you agree with that? And if you do, do you think that the Guardian and NYT lied because they reported that he "admitted" and "confessed" to fabricating stories when he never actually did? Sorry, to press you on this. I won't ask again. I'm just trying to get clear. Thanks!
I understand your point of view, and I agree that twisting the truth is a problem in the mainstream media, and that is what you are trying to say. I am simply concerned that this is the wrong thing to highlight at such a time. The race is extremely close, and we need to put all our energy into making sure that Trump does not win it. Any focus on mistakes the left or the media have made just gives people an excuse to stay home from voting or even vote for Trump--a kind of "what about" ism. And I think this is very dangerous.